Germany:
Alleged police informant spies on social rights coalitionsOn
8 November, an informant was exposed in the Hamburg activist
scene. He had infiltrated several politically active groups and
taken part in demonstrations, actions and group meetings. The
student unions of the Hamburg universities, to which many of
the active groups are linked, are considering legal measures
on grounds of the infiltration compromising a violation of several
constitutional rights. However, neither the police nor the local
government have commented on the allegations, leaving it open
as to whether 'Christian Trott', who is known to have worked
as a police officer until one year ago (his time of appearance
in the groups), was deployed by the regional police crime authority
(Landeskriminalamt) or the internal security service (Verfassungsschutz).
A Green Party member has lodged a question in the Hamburg Senate
to clarify the background to the alleged spying.

'Christian Trott', whose real name turned out to be Kristian
K., had entered several politically active groups and circles
one year ago, claiming he was 22 years old and giving varying
information about his job and housing situation to different
people. He was particularly interested in groups that are active
against Germany's policy drive to undermine social security provisions,
implemented through the so-called Hartz regulations. On 8 November,
at an action against the welfare organisation Arbeiterwohlfahrt,
which collaborates with the government's policies by offering
so-called 1 Euro jobs (forcing those on benefits to take any
low-paid job in threat of losing the right to social security),
Kristian was recognised by a former schoolmate. She identified
him and informed the groups that he had joined the police after
his A-levels. Kristian vanished after seeing his former acquaintance
at the action. On further research by the groups, other witnesses
said that to their knowledge he was still in the police at least
one year ago, which is when he appeared on the political scene
in Hamburg.

Amongst others, the concerned groups are the "Hamburg-umsonst
Kampagne" (Hamburg-for-free campaign), which carries out
symbolic actions against the increasing prices of public services
and the current dismantling of Germany's social security system
(the above mentioned Hartz reforms), the radical trade union
plenary Freie Arbeiter und Arbeiterinnen Union, the "Anti-Hartz-Group",
which also counts trade union members of the GEW (Education and
Science) and Verdi (different branches), and lately Kristian
also attempted to enter the group "Attac-AG Sozialer Ungehorsam"
(Attac working group 'social disobedience') and tried to become
active in the student union and move into political living groups.

It is notable that the alleged informant targeted social pressure
groups whose main aims are to discuss and highlight the impoverishing
effect of the government's current anti-social security measures,
which particularly target the unemployed and low-pay sector workers.
Hence the strong engagement of trade unions in the massive social
protests that have taken place over the last year in Germany,
with weekly nation-wide as well as regional demonstrations and
several active coalitions. Bela Rogalla, student union spokesman
of Hamburg university, particularly criticizes the fact that
if the allegations prove to hold, the state is in fact spying
on civil protest groups and students. Apart from violating the
right to privacy, this would be in clear violation of the guidelines
on secret police informants which are laid down in the Hamburg
regional police regulation Gesetz über die Datenverarbeitung
der Polizei (Law on Data Collection on Behalf of the Police).
The regulation details that the use of secret informants is only
allowed if

- their deployment is "necessary for the defence of an
immediate danger to a person's welfare, life or freedom",
- "existing facts justify the suspicion that there is an
intent to commit significant criminal acts in the form of organised
crime and that the deployment is necessary for the preventative
fight against these criminal acts".
- Finally, the use of secret service informant only takes place
on order of the chief of police and necessitates the authorisation
of the public prosecution.

Further, the press release of the student union claims that
the use of secret informants violates articles 2 and 4 of the
German Constitution which restrict the state's activities and
give citizen's the right to defend themselves against state activities
respectively. The secret nature of the operation both prevents
transparency and control of the state's activity and the possibility
for citizens to defend themselves against unlawful state actions.

Udo Nagel, the chief of police in charge at the time in question
is currently Hamburg's Senator for the Interior. Nagel (independent)
and ordered the deportation of the Hamburg 9/11 suspects despite
the fact that they were (or are expected to be, as one suspect
is still awaiting the sentence) acquitted of all charges. Nagel
is at the forefront of promoting the deportation of terrorist
suspects without allegations having to be tested in court (see
Statewatch Bulletin volume 14 no's 3 & 4).

The student union and the concerned groups are demanding from
the Hamburg Senate to make a public statement on the allegations
and to inform those concerned about the operation and the data
collected on them. They also demand from the elected city council
to fulfil its parliamentary control function over the executive
and clarify the case.

On 19 November, Antje Möller from the Hamburg Green Party
(GAL) lodged a written question to the regional government asking
the Senate if it uses secret informants and if "Christian
Trott" was one and if so for which institution he was active,
what the concrete suspicion was that justified his deployment
and which criminal act was (to be) prevented, if the internal
secret service is involved, if any criminal prosecutions against
those spied on have been initiated and if the right to data protection
of those concerned was respected, amongst others.

Statewatch does not have a corporate
view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are
those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content
of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute
an endorsement.